Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

In the state that I live (NH), obscene is defined by anything that most likely would cause "affront or alarm." This, of course, leaves a lot for interpretation. My new hair cut could be considered obscene.

The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Is it neccessary for society to function? Is it important to have a line drawn somewhere, for fear that if the line gets pushed, even more extreme things may become the norm? (Killing babies, public self mutiliation, goatse)?

I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public. But then I try to think why it is, and can't seem to find a good answer. Is it because that's how I was brought up, and that's how I learned it should be?

There are a lot of things that I learned as I grew up that don't actually make sense. Is it possible that some things are just the way we've always done it, and that's why it shouldn't change? My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)?

As an interesting side note, if he really wants to make a point, he should add a new term to the trends- Google Trends [google.com]. (Additionally, he shouldn't have public news like this- people will skew the trends when they find out about it.

In the state that I live (NH), obscene is defined by anything that most likely would cause "affront or alarm." This, of course, leaves a lot for interpretation. My new hair cut could be considered obscene.

What? Do you have a penis and balls shaved onto the top of your head? Next time don't pass out drunk at a party, lightweight.

it's not like there once was a time in human history when love was free and sex was easy. there have always been social limits on sex for as long as we have been social apes. sure, we don't have to fight and scrounge for food anymore, but this has only been true for the last century. which, not coincidentally, the last century has seen a relaxation of sexual mores. the other hundreds of thousands of years of human history has been a desperate fight for resources for you and your children against the neighbors and their kids.

prudish social conservatism is not some newfangled judeochristian invention, it is simply human nature. the gut human reaction at seeing someone more successful than you procreatively or materially is anger, and this anger is evolutionarily advantageous: to work hard at limiting your fellow man's success and enjoyment in life, so that you may have some success yourself.

so sex is is fun, sex is pleasurable, sex is good, sex is harmless... unless it is someone else having it. then it is bad. is this selfish? absolutely. and evolutionarily advantageous. and therefore hardwired into how our brains function: there is no way the neighbor's children are going to get more bananas than my children, so there is no way the neighbors are going to freely have sex without my approval

in this perverse way, the urge to prevent other people from enjoying sex is the same urge underlying the desire for social justice, for equality: you can't have more than me, its not fair. community standards on sex is simply the most primitive form of birth control. no, that's not "just say no", that's "you have sex and i'll punish you, because your children are taking resources from my children"

I think you have a strange view of human nature. I feel pleasure at seeing someone more successful than I, as long as that success seems warranted. That urge towards justice and fairness you mention works both ways if you let it.

You should also read up on anthropology, because you have some strange ideas about what humans are like in their 'natural' state. Read The Continuum Concept [wikipedia.org] for another view.

There seem to be only two cultures in the world, the culture of feast and sharing, and the culture of famine and war. You are drawing your conclusions based on only the currently dominant culture. For most of human history, though, it was not.

I feel pleasure at seeing someone more successful than I, as long as that success seems warranted.

And herein lies the rub. What "seems warranted" varies wildly depending on what measuring stick you use. For example, is it possible for a teenage vacuum-head "pop star" to warrant worth 10000 greater then the best neurosurgeon or the discoverer of some properties of proteins which result in making the cure for cancer possible?

What measurement do you use to make multi-billion economic empires - and with them

Human nature has two natural modes that are resource dependent. In times of plentiful resources, sharing and cooperation make more sense. There are always local scarcities and disasters, so when a society has more than enough in general, it makes the most sense to share and cooperate, to build support networks.

In times of famine, it makes sense to look after yourself and your own, and not to share with others. What is so hard to understand about that?

that at the time of the agricultural revolution, when food forever more became reliable rather than a mad scramble, suddenly we all got locked into famine thinking

i'm sorry, but this is stupid

but you don't have to listen to me. history is replete with utopianists. go close your eyes about human nature, make believe everything will be magically bountiful with the right "insights" (ie, delusions) about humanity... go found your utopia... and it always fails

we are rich in the west today. as such, we have more sex than our poorer ancestors, and just as much sex as the roman emperors. western prudishness is very much been defeate by the relative richness of our lives compared to the past or other cultures, or did you mix the 1960s?

in the past, the rich also had rich sex lives. that rich people can escape social mores is not an amazing concept. nor is it true that there was some magical past when all love was free. the average roman was most definitely not having

I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public.

I disagree. What you think is wrong is an opinion and you should explicitly have no right to influence the behavior of others, where that behavior isn't causing *demonstrable* harm to others, on the basis of your opinion.

My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)?

And there's the problem. You're assuming that there's some inherent truth to a claim that people shouldn't be running around naked in public -- when there's pretty substantial evidence from cultures going back to pre-history that there's not a bit of problem with it at all.

I'm sure you can see that I was arguing a point that I personally didn't agree with. It was just a bit of insight on my own thought process. I don't believe there exists an inherent truth, or that my opinion (or my parents) should be taken as one.

I'm merely commenting on the state of society, their thought process, and my struggle with my own though process given to me by society.

This is great - in theory (i'd spend +mod points if I had) and I wish reality matched up.

Unfortunately in the USA people seem to feel they deserve to be comfortable, protected, and coddled anywhere and everywhere they go. How about the FCC complaints about radio (much less TV) in the past few years? Seriously, turn it off or just change the station. Instead, certain people feel the need to impose their own moral views on the greater population.

And there's the problem. You're assuming that there's some inherent truth to a claim that people shouldn't be running around naked in public -- when there's pretty substantial evidence from cultures going back to pre-history that there's not a bit of problem with it at all.

Seeing as most Americans descend from Europeans, there is a prehistoric problem with it, namely idiot cro-magnons that did so died of exposure during the winter. So along with a genetic ability to handle our alcohol, fight livestock derived diseases, and digest animal milk, we also inherited an understanding that running around naked isn't a good plan. Don't find many eskimos procreating in the great out doors, do you?

The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with?

Simple answer: They don't make the rich richer.

Suppressed sexual energy can be canalized for profit.

Is it possible that some things are just the way we've always done it, and that's why it shouldn't change?

That's what conservatism is all about.Except that it isn't even that things have always been like that, just that they are perceived that way. Take the pledge of allegiance, "under god" was added LONG after it was first uttered, but conservatives want to keep it because this is the version they heard first, so they assume it's how it always was. They oppose change because it's different from what they were

The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with? Is it neccessary for society to function? Is it important to have a line drawn somewhere, for fear that if the line gets pushed, even more extreme things may become the norm?

No. To control a society through fear (of terrorism, eternal damnation, or whatever the meme of the day is) you need to make sure that said fear is present at all times.

Sexuality is an excellent choice for a religion-dominated control-through-fear approach. It's one of the strongest natural drives, but contrary to hunger, thirst or the opposite bodily functions, you can actually suppress it for a long time. Thus you can have "good" examples to tell all the normal people that they are abnormal, evil, and will certainly go to hell unless... and the unless is what puts you in power.

Worked in Europe for almost two thousand years. In some more primitive parts of the world, including certain regions of Europe and the US, it still works quite well.

It is precisely because nudity and sex are such normal and natural things that they are made taboo.

Religion to terrorism. Not only do they go hand-in-hand often enough but they seem to operate on very similar principles.

Terrorism - we hurt you with whatever means we have because you disagree with our views or don't follow our way of life.

Religion - we threaten eternal damnation, expulsion from the community, and whatever else we can imply/coerce (and corporal/capital punishment particularly in older times) if you don't follow our views and ways of life.

My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)?

Interesting. I'm not sure why running around naked in public is a bad thing. You might get a cold, but no worse that if you go running around in swimming trunks. Maybe because there's a risk of snagging yourself on something?

To follow your example...the fish generally don't pretend to procreate for pleasure and no one objects when they DO procreate. So maybe the problem is people should only have sex in public if they intend to sucessfully procreate.

How about that? It's just nature we're talking about now. Is that obscene?:)

To follow your example...the fish generally don't pretend to procreate for pleasure and no one objects when they DO procreate.

There's evidence suggesting that fish do have sex for reasons other than procreation. Whether this be pleasure (fish can feel pain [bbc.co.uk]--I submit that if a creature can feel pain they can feel pleasure), or for other social reasons [stanford.edu] (see the paragraph about bonobos using sex to relieve tension), or to establish dominance [reed.edu] (which I would argue the other animals aren't too happy about) the fact remains that human mores about sex appear to run counter to the rest of nature.

Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.

Says who? Last time I checked, there were thre reasons for doing something in private: You believe the world has no right to know your private affairs, or you're ashamed of what you're doing, or you fear the repercussions of your action.

Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. It can have those qualities, but those are not inherent in the act itself.

People involved in the act tend to be focused on what they're doing, or at least distracted. That puts you at risk for outside threats and our instincts are to do risky things in safe environments.

Some part of the brain starts yelling "Hey, you are very exposed right now!" and it has a very visceral impact on the person depending on their mindset. The sensations range from a thrill (for the exhibitionist) to anxiety ("normal" people) all the way to psyche scarring shame (for the repressed).

The problem that I see with this issue is that it isn't *really* about protecting the children so much as protecting one's self from having to encounter something that makes one squeamish.

Pictures of naked women painted to look like cows (for example) are pretty darn weird. A lot of people are well within their rights to be freaked out by the existence of such pictures. They are exactly the sort of thing that makes someone squeamish. But does that, in and of itself, mean they should be illegal?

In a country that is founded upon personal freedom, the answer is "no." In a country founded on moral oppression the answer is "yes," but America is not (at least in theory) such a country. Here the acid test is (or at least should be) "is it directly harmful to a human." And, in the case of these pictures, the answer is obviously, "no."

I have friends who are fond of saying, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to free speech" (interestingly enough, none of them have actually joined the military, but that is beside the point). They like to pretend to be patriotic. In my opinion, a REAL patriot would say, "I will fight to the death to defend your right to do things that freak me the fuck out."

'I disagree with everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Personally, I'd rather kill the enemy to protect our rights; dying doesn't actually tend to do much.

Thus, I'll actually defend Phelps - but I think he's a complete a**wipe for what he's done, including before he decided to start protesting military funerals. Previously he'd protest at gay funerals; I guess it didn't get him enough media coverage.

I pointed out there was a real and rational reason why people tend to do things in private that has nothing to do with cultural/legal mores (shame & fear of repercussions) or personal attitudes (private nature). I didn't actually comment on the validity of the case or the likelihood of success.

I'm on the side of personal choice, albeit one tempered by the rights of others. E.g. "your right to throw a punch ends before my face starts." This admittedly tends to put more limits on extroverted activitie

Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond.

Interesting statement. "meant" - by whom? Who says it should be performed in private (except people nowadays)?

You're assuming quite a bit, I suspect. I, on the other hand, know for sure that the FSM meant for sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once.

Meant by society. There are societal norms present in every culture. Its not so much 'meant' as it is 'what is expected or regular.'

Culturally it's 'regular' or 'expected' that two people have sex alone or privately. I don't think society as a whole believes that 'sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once' is regular.

Granted, I don't think either choice should be regulated, but I think its naive of you to believe that there is no relative consensus about things like this in every society. That is to say, that society does not perceive 'sex as a private act between two people' and 'cheese orgy' as equally palatable (pun unintended) or socially acceptable.

The question is simple: why are natural things like nudity, sex, and sexual intercourse considered obscene to begin with?
Because it is such a private and special act, despite the act having been demeaned over the past 60+ years. And that's the problem. Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.

And now go and tell that to the Bonobos!:-)
You may be right with the last 60+ years, but if you think back say 1000 years, with at least one peasant family living in a crowded hut. If it were *that* private back then, mankind wouldnt have survived till now.
Someone here has any clue when it became a private act in the first place? Had to be some time after our anchestors descended from the trees.

I agree with your first paragraph, even if it's not a popular opinion. In spite of all of the arguments from biology - that it's a natural function of living, all animals do it in some shape or form, etc. - it's obvious to me that sex has a special place in human thought and society, and that a large part of the apparatus of modern society depends upon us acting contrary to our animal urges.

On the other hand, I disagree with your second paragraph. You identify two possible intentions for the portrayal of people in the nude (and I question how common the first is as a primary intention - it is undoubtedly a common consequence), but not a great many others. Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer. The same could be said for a great many works of art and photography.

Michaelangelo's David is nude, but not in order to demean the subject or to titillate the observer

Prove that. It's not that I entirely disagree but there is a lot of grey area. Many people assume that sexuality needs to be separated from everything else despite it being one of the primal urges. I disagree.

Because it is such a private and special act, despite the act having been demeaned over the past 60+ years. And that's the problem. Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.

Whole lot of preconceived notions and assumptions in that paragraph. The indoctrination goes deeper than you may believe. Who says it should always be private, or particularly special? Who says it should only be with someone you love and care deeply for? Why do you consider sensuality to be trite?

Um, no. Sex is not particularly special, the majority of adults have had it. It's considered private in our culture, but in other cultures a couple living in a one room hut with a couple of kids will think nothing of getting it on while the kids are there.

(Sex with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing. But then, going out to dinner with someone you love is, hopefully, a special thing - it's the "with someone you love" that makes it special, not the act itself.)

Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond.

Sexual intercourse is "meant" to be an act performed to make more members of the screwing couple's species. Anything additional is a social or psychological construct. Which doesn't mean that adding to it is good or bad - but seeking "meaning" in biology is not a useful endeavor.

Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality.

Ancient Hebrew mythology about talking snakes, magical trees, and why all the problems in the world are the fault of a woman, is not a good reason for pointing guns at people and locking them in cages if they step outside with no clothes on.

Any purported system of morality that claims public nudity to be immoral has left any vestige of rationality behind. Hundreds of people have seen me naked (at events like this [freespiritgathering.org] and this [rosencomet.com] and this [playadelfuego.org]) and no one has been harmed.

I do agree with your views on sex and nudity. I'll go even further to say that it is very wrong to live a promiscuous lifestyle (for which there are many reasons). But to impose your morals on someone else and restrict freedom is probably the greatest crime. The problem that people don't realize is that the law exists to keep a society running. Society then exists to keep morals themselves in check. Don't like what one society believes, then move. But distributing such judgment on a large scale wont let you move to stay happy. That's why I believe much more in state government. There should be some cities that allow drug use, nudism, etc. However, a system that allows political experimentation is a long way from happening with the whole of governments acting like some uptight monarchy. If I were more into politics than science, I would start some movement to have these restrained minorities unite on some website and plan to move in mass to desolate areas where their vote counts heavily. However that is one arduous process that I hope someone else takes on.

First off, let me say that I admire your stance on not posting as Anonymous Coward. I wish more people would associate themselves with their views when they know that they're saying something that will be unpopular.

Okay...I'm not sure where sexual acts have been demeaned for 60+ years. Depending on the threshold for "demean," it's either been 10+ years or 3500+ years (when you consider that the "+" is not like a price bid on "The Price is Right," so that you've got the best guess as long as you don't go o

Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond.

What do you mean "meant to"? As far as I know, the only thing sex is "meant to" do is allow for continuation of a species and to pass genes. The only time sex has any kind of emotion attached to it is when YOU attach it yourself. Sex by itself cannot have any special meaning unless you intentionally interpret it as such.

That being said, your interpretation of sex should have nothing to do with mine. Obviously there are conflicts -- i.e. if my interpretation of sex is "I get to rape anyone I want includi

You could use Genesis as a post-facto justification, but that's not the only interpretation you could give, and it doesn't actually explain why privacy didn't become a concern with conversion, but emerged later.

The assumption of privacy (with regards to sex and sleeping and stuff) in Christendom is more a result of the Little Ice Age than of any inherent moral concerns. During the Medieval Warm Period, there was a big hall where the lord and his maintainers all just slept together in. There was a fire in

Certainly, in the Judeo-Christian value system that Europe and the US was brought up in, we were taught that once Adam & Eve ate the fruit and became smart, they put clothes on - to be in public without clothes on is an affront to modesty and morality.

Europe?!? I take it you never went to the Sauna in Finland. Even in Turkey you can go topless at any beach. Only in the US will you be thrown in jail for showing your bare breasts.

If we lived in a world free of religion, chances are sex and nudity would as blase as they are in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Actually I don't believe that. Even in countries like Japan which do not have a Judeo Christian tradition there are taboos about sex and nudity. The fact is, if you're sentient and female sex is a big deal, because it can change your life if you get pregnant. So it's unlikely that women anywhere will be blase about sex because it is very important to them that they have sex with the right man. The right man being one that will support them when they are pregnant, because that is a vulnerable state. And wi

it does not really matter whether this is the bible or rule of law. If the society in general does not wish to be confronted with fat people making strange noises than it is so. I do not mind being seen by whoever pervert wants to look through my windows when I do it with my wife, my wife does and that pretty much resolves the issue for us. I suppose the same applies to large groups of people. However the case in question is not about fat bodies making noises in public but about ISP hosting 'obscene' service i.e. most likely you have to log on to see anything or at least you have to click on some link to get there. This makes it different and thus I do not think the courts have anything to say about it as although it is available for t he public it is possible to avoid it if one wants.

What judge will decide is another thing altogether. They have their own view and possibly this will go all the way to supreme court where it gets treatment 'once and for all'.

There are those of us who seek to rule our own emotional responses to things so that we may act reasonably, and then there are those who are ruled by their own emotional responses to things so much that they cannot act reasonably.

I've struggled with similar problems- even a few times stumbling upon accidental cp, and suddenly I get an uneasy feeling that:

1. I'm afraid nothing will remain sacred. If increasingly shocking things become normal, I will become desensitized. Am I basing my sense of morality on my ability to become shocked or disturbed? Possibly...

2. The party van will get me. I'm not trying to view CP, but it pops up (if you're talking about the same certain site I am, and I think you are). I quickly report those imag

A little almost on topic background to the cliche "Hoist with his own petard" [wikipedia.org] before getting entirely ON topic:

A petard was a small medieval bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications. In a typical implementation, it was commonly either a conical or rectangular metal object containing 5 or 6 pounds of gun powder, activated with a slow match used as a fuse. It was often placed either inside tunnels under walls, or directly upon gates. When placed inside a tunnel under a wall and exploded, large amounts of air would often be released from the tunnel, as the tunnel collapsed. By securing the device firmly to the gate, the shape of the device allows the concussive pressure of the blast to be applied entirely towards the destruction of the gate. Depending on design, a petard could be secured by propping it against the gate using beams as illustrated, or nailing it in place by way of a wooden board fixed to the end of the petard in advance.

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoist by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb. Shakespeare used the now proverbial phrase in Hamlet.

In medieval and Renaissance siege warfare, a common tactic was to dig a shallow trench close to the enemy gate, and then erect a small hoisting engine that would lift the lit petard out of the trench, swing it up, out, and over to the gate, where it would detonate and hopefully breach the gate. It was not impossible, however, that this procedure would go awry, and the engineer lighting the bomb could be snagged in the ropes and lifted out with the petard and consequently blown up. Alternately, and perhaps a more likely scenario, if the petard were to detonate prematurely due to a faulty or short slow match, the engineer would be lifted or 'hoist' by the explosion.

Thus to be 'hoist with his own petar' is to be caught up and destroyed by his own plot. Hamlet's actual meaning is "cause the bomb maker to be blown up with his own bomb", metaphorically turning the tables on Claudius, whose messengers are killed instead of Hamlet. Also note here, Shakespeare's probable off-color pun "hoisted with his own petar" (i.e., fart) as reason for the spelling "petar" rather than "petard".

My thought on using google trends is that perhaps the petard hasn't yet detonated, and may well not detonate at all.

The only reason one would look up "apple pie" would be to get a recipe for it. And "orgy" could mean, according to wikipedia, asecret cultic congregation at nighttime in Ancient Greek religion; a synth rock band from Los Angeles, California named "Orgy"; or a musical marathon radio format created by WHRB 95.3 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Perhaps the defense should look up some other words besides "apple pie" and "orgy". Perhaps "vinyl siding" and "anal sex" would be better search terms. Surely the prosecution will see this and counter.

They're not my historical anecdotes, they're wikipedia's. You can change it if you want (but they'll change it right back).

Since you obviously have a problem with wikipedia's accuracy, I looked it up on uncyclopedia. Unfortionately, according to the uncyclopedia, petards don't exist. But Picard [uncyclopedia.org] does. According to uncyclopedia, what Shakespeare said was "He was hoist by his own Picard".

Can anyone put up a picture of the U.S. (and world) that highlights areas that find apple pies more interesting that orgies?

No, but I can put up a picture of the US that would show the entire Southeast as claiming to have community standards that frown upon pornography all the while having the most "adult" bookstores and strip clubs per capita of any region in the US. (NO, no citation, just need to live there for a few years yourself to see what I mean.)

O.k., I can understand "Apple Pie" spiking every fall, presumably people looking up recipes. But wtf is up with the enormous spike in searches for "orgy" in Sept. 2006? It's as if everyone in Pensacola had a mass orgy meme sweep through the community. Must have been a mess month.

"We tried to come up with comparison search terms that would embody typical American values," Mr. Walters said. "What is more American than apple pie?" But according to the search service, he said, "people are at least as interested in group sex and orgies as they are in apple pie."

Chris Hansen, a staff lawyer for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the tactic clever and novel, but said it underscored the power of the Internet to reveal personal preferences -- something that raises concerns about the collection of personal information.

"That's why a lot of people are nervous about Google or Yahoo having all this data," he said.

Interesting, when you switch to all regions: the gap between orgy and apple pie widens (so Americans are more prude it seems). But Tampa, FL, USA is still the #1 city searching for Orgy, the Czechs beat the Greece, and Polish is the second most used language to search for Orgy.

The Sample with the Built-in BiasThe Well-Chosen AverageThe Little Figures That Are Not ThereMuch Ado about Practically NothingThe Gee-Whiz GraphThe One-Dimensional PictureThe Semi-attached FigurePost Hoc Rides AgainHow to StatisticulateHow to Talk Back to a Statistic

Mr. Walters is defending Clinton Raymond McCowen, who is facing charges that he created and distributed obscene material through a Web site based in Florida. The charges include racketeering and prostitution, but Mr. Walters said the prosecution's case fundamentally relies on proving that the material on the site is obscene.

How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.

Mr. Walters is defending Clinton Raymond McCowen, who is facing charges that he created and distributed obscene material through a Web site based in Florida. The charges include racketeering and prostitution, but Mr. Walters said the prosecution's case fundamentally relies on proving that the material on the site is obscene.

How exactly is google trends going to clear him of racketeering and prostitution? Just curious.

You got me curious too, the article linked was light on details, so I googled the guys' name:

See, all this activity is stemming from things that occurred in the past. We had moved production from Pensacola almost three years ago. We moved to Tampa for a little while and then to Vancouver.

I'm really tired of the "influential-prissy" inflicting their moral code on us by defining regular adult erotica outside the mainstream. I'm sorry, we the people LIKE erotica. It's in our nature and it's natural. If the prissy side doesn't want to partake, then they are free to refrain, but they shouldn't be able to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do based on their narrow prejudices. Furthermore, I'm tired of these vague and nebulous laws which specify "community standards," as if we all got a say in the matter (which, evidently, we don't).

This is suppose to be the land of the FREE, not necessarily just the PRUDES.

I seem to remember a case in Utah where a local obscenity ordinance was being used to try an shut down a video rental store. The argument was local values in the town didn't truck with XXX videos.

The defense got anonymized records from one of the big hotels right across the street from the video rental. It showed that in-room, adult movie rentals were quite popular -- well above the national average. It also showed that the majority of those renting were from the local area, and not out of town perverts.

The defense showed that the "local values" were, in reality, not in line with the stuffy, Victorian puritanism that was being touted publicly. The defense won the case.

Taking Pensacola's data as a baseline will offer skewed results. Pensacola has a large Navy population, so would have higher porn related searches then the rest of the communities in the area from the Navy personnel stationed there alone.

Taking Pensacola's data as a baseline will offer skewed results. Pensacola has a large Navy population, so would have higher porn related searches then the rest of the communities in the area from the Navy personnel stationed there alone.

As a navy semen, I reject your pornosition that sex is always on our minds.

Hypocrisy isn't just the south - it's people. I have yet to meet a person that did not have some sort of hypocrisy going on in their own life - myself included. This is the reason for the entire Biblical passage, "Take the log out of your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors." If people spent time fixing themselves and not worrying about other people's problems, the world would be a much more beautiful place.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are extremely motivated by their own self-interest and will do whatever it takes to protect that self-interest, even if it means lying to themselves about their actual flaws. Only when people can admit their flaws are they ever going to have a chance of actually fixing things in their lives.